LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-16

SAVITRIBAI (SMT.) Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On September 14, 2017
Savitribai (Smt.) Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, widow of Late Jagdish Singh Masram (a Constable working in 8th Battalion SAF, Chhindwara) has filed this petition challenging the order dated 30.06.2007 and 29.10.2011 passed by the respondents No.2 & 3.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts narrated by the petitioner are that Jagdish Singh Masram while returning back to Chhindwara on a motor-cycle on 31.01.2006, met with an accident and suffered serious injuries. After a prolonged treatment, one leg of Jagdish Singh Masram was imputed, FIR and medical certificate showing the same are filed as Annexure-P/1 and P/2. It is further stated that Jagdish Singh Masram (petitioner's husband) suffered an internal head injury in the said accident. Petitioner's husband ultimately lost his mental balance and committed suicide on 10.07.2008. During the course of treatment, petitioner's husband was required to be shifted from one district to another and because of the same, he could not join the service. It is averred that since Jagdish Singh Masram was upset because of accident, he could not inform the department about the accident in writing. However, the department was aware about the accident and physical condition of the employee.

(3.) It is admitted that number of requisitions were send on the official address of petitioner's husband but none of such requisitions were replied by him. No notice at the permanent address of petitioner's husband was send nor any such notice was ever published in the newspaper. The petitioner has filed the charge-sheet (Annexure-P/3) and contended that notices of departmental inquiry were never served upon her husband. The show cause notice dated 30.06.2007 was served on the petitioner's husband and thereafter by order dated 30.06.2007, he was removed from service. Jagdish Singh Masram died leaving behind three children and the factum of his dismissal was gathered by present petitioner when the local MLA received a communication from the department that her husband was dismissed from service. Thereafter, she filed the present petition.